"Boing boing?" Great source there Wayne.
| EnviroLink Forum http://www.envirolink.org/forum/ |
|
| Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the news .. http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24872 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the news .. |
A comparison of the science reporters for Fox and NPR ..... http://boingboing.net/2015/03/27/lets-c ... ounds.html GhostofAlyeska says he was "simply curious who Fox News' science reporters are. I wanted to know what kind of scientific backgrounds they might have." Here's what he found: |
|
| Author: | Milton Banana [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
"Boing boing?" Great source there Wayne.
|
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Milton Banana [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. 
|
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Farmer [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
Referring to your original post Wayne, I am fully aware of little value f.n. places on truth, a serious problem, but it was still the best laugh I had all day . thanks. |
|
| Author: | Milton Banana [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
Let me try this again ..... http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/ Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) Explanation It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem. The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. Example (1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life. (2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious. Therefore: (3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design. This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem. |
|
| Author: | Milton Banana [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
Oh yes, and boingboing.net is a source above reproach. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
| Author: | Johhny Electriglide [ Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Since a fair amount of "skeptic" info comes from the new |
"Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus. Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people. The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny. In a 2010 book, Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway called these men “Merchants of Doubt,” and this spring the book became a documentary film, by Robert Kenner. At the heart of both works is a description of methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/scien ... earth&_r=0 I wonder if they also cast doubt on the gross overpopulation of humans on Earth? The Julian Simon Infinite Earthers, et al ----- |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|